XMPP Council - 2018-03-07

There's so much on the agenda this week, I'm tempted to vote on-list *before* the meeting, just to speed things up :)

I'm unfortunately late to the party, still moving and only on mobile for the next hour

And the worst thing is, I was only able to work through half of the Dusty drafts in advance 😕

Righty.

'tis time :)

Yeah, that.

Two ticks while I bring up the agenda - do we have a minute-taker?

cannot take minutes, on mobile

😾

OK. I'll do it if needs be.

1) Roll Call

Here

SamWhited ?

I'm here

I'm still here.

Cool. So just quasi-missing Georg.

Ah. Well, folks, I seem to have a problem, because I've just been called by my daughter who needs a lift.

Send your votes on list, hope she's ok.

🤚

Sorry about this - can someone else take over for a bit?

Done.

Kev, She's fine, but she'll get very wet if she tries walking. :-)

3) CFE for XEP-0020: Feature Negotiation https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0020.html

Each of these votes has two parts - first whether to Call For Experience before moving to Final, the second to instead deprecate it. This one is for CFE with the intention to later move to Final.

Is 0020 actually used in practice? It's referenced from 0066 and some deprecated ones

I'm -1 for 20 CFE.

No, 20's not used in practice anywhere I'm aware, although 155 references it

Yes, 0155 was the other one.

155 is also not used :)

-1 then.

-1

I've been thinking about this one a lot, because I've *thought* tabout using 0020 a few times, but never ended up doing it and am not aware of anything else using it. I'm leaning vaguely against moving it on, so -0 I suppose.

4) Deprecate XEP-0020: Feature Negotiation https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0020.html

+0

Should we instead deprecate? I'm +1, although we do need to sort 155 too.

+1 as well

SamWhited: If you feel it's useful, you can easily -1 here :)

+1

No, I'm all for getting rid of cruft that no one uses. It actually occured to me that I've been confused by this one a few times when I thought about using it too, so I feel better about a -1/+1 respectively, but I'll leave my votes alone so that you don't have to change anything.

Well, Dave's on-list if Sam wants to change his mind anyway.

5) CFE for XEP-0048: Bookmarks https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0048.html

I feel this is premature while the ongoing 49/223 mismatch question isn’t answered. +0

There's that elephant in the room...

What Kev said

This is just to do a CFE, not to actually move to draft, right? Seems like a good way to get more feedback. +1

So we need a way forward with that as well

SamWhited: Final, not Draft. But correct.

cfe is for final not draft

err, right, that.

Maybe a cfe with the additional note about 0049 will do the trick

I'm not going to fight this :)

daniel?

I'm not really sure.

Yeah I guess +1

I like the current wording in 0048, it's good enough anyway

Ge0rG?

Ge0rG [17:11]: > Maybe a cfe with the additional note about 0049 will do the trick Read that as a +1

6) Deprecate XEP-0048: Bookmarks https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0048.html

-1

-1

-1

-1

I'm just going to assume everyone who's +1 for CFE is going to be -1 deprecating going forwards and skip the vote.

Kev: yes please

7) CFE for XEP-0059: Result Set Management https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0059.html

What about the recent discussion of combining before and after in MAM RSM.

The ongoing before/after discussion in the context of MAM makes this seem premature too, as this might result in significant change (at least in how some people are reading it). -1

+1

Ge0rG: Yes, I think we need to resolve that before we can sensibly think about Finalling this.

+1

-1, what Kev said. Also -1 to depreciation

8) Deprecate XEP-0059: Result Set Management https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0059.html

-1

-1

-1

9) CFE for XEP-0066: Out of Band Data https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0066.html

+1

I'm not really sure what this is used for exactly...

This is a good candidate for the "good parts" discussion

But +1

+1

daniel: it's used for inline images in conversations

Ge0rG: Vote?

Is anyone using the iq part of it?

I don't know, I think CFE should be interesting for this one.

Ge0rG: seems pretty hacky to me

Then +1 for CFE

10) Deprecate XEP-0066: Out of Band Data https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0066.html All -1

11) CFE for XEP-0072: SOAP Over XMPP https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html

-1

+1. It seems sensible to deprecate it, but I think that we should ask if anyone’s using it first.

I suspect the outcome of a CFE on this one will make it obvious that it should or shouldn't be deprecated.

What Kev said. +1

+1

12) Deprecate XEP-0072: SOAP Over XMPP https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html

-1, as above.

+1

-1

-1

13) CFE for XEP-0079: Advanced Message Processing https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0079.html

I don’t see this advancing to Final unscathed, but +1 for a CFE.

+0

+0

SamWhited?

Somebody was recently asking for a way to make time limited messages

-0 I suppose; I'm a bit torn on this one, but I don't think it's worth blocking a CFE.

Not with this thought Ge0rG

Totally unsuited for that job

SamWhited: The CFE has been blocked (needs three +1).

14) Deprecate XEP-0079: Advanced Message Processing https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0079.html

Oh, huh, I didn't realize that worked differently. Fair enough, I'll +1 for CFE then

-1. I think it needs discussion first (e.g. with a CFE, but doesn't need to be)

+1 for deprecation also though.

Almost all Council votes work that they need a majority of +1 with no -1. I've not checked the rules for CFE recently, but I'm sure it won't pass on a minority.

-1, agreed with Kev

-1

15) CFE for XEP-0092: Software Version https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0092.html

+1

+1

+1

+1

16) Deprecate XEP-0092: Software Version https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0092.html All -1

17) CFE for XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0122.html

+1

+1

+0

+1, sounds useful enough, but no idea who's using it

18) Deprecate XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0122.html Kev, daniel, Ge0rG -1

SamWhited?

+1

19) CFE for XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0131.html

+1. I think this is one for deprecation, but I also think we need to discuss, particularly the xep60 dependency, first.

+1

-0, wouldn't block.

Ge0rG?

+1

20) Deprecate XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0131.html Kev, daniel, Ge0rG -1

SamWhited?

+0

21) CFE for XEP-0141: Data Forms Layout https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0141.html

+1

+1

+1

I'm for deprecation of 0131, but only after some discussion

Sorry, mobile lag

-0 for CFE, +0 to deprecate.

22) Deprecate XEP-0141: Data Forms Layout https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0141.html Kev, Ge0rG, daniel -1. Sam +0

23) CFE for XEP-0229: Stream Compression with LZW https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0229.html

+1. Be interesting to see if anyone actually uses this.

I have an implementation and use it, so +1

HipChat also uses it, IIRC.

(although I can't remember; I implemented it, and I *think* I used LZW, but it might have been gzip)

Compression is insecure if not applied very cautiously. We should deprecate all of the related xeps

So I'm -1 / +1

Unless this is a veto, then I'm - 0

Our illustrious Chair should check the rules, but I believe (without checking) all the -1s on CFE will veto them.

I generally agree with that, so I am a bit torn, but do want to have a CFE and see what others think.

Kev: then log me as -0 please

(Back, but Kev can carry on for consistency)

daniel: Got a vote on this one?

Dave: did you really go anywhere, or did you just want someone else to go through this massive list for you? *squinty eyes*

+1 cfe with an option to later deprecate the compression xep

Not just this xep

SamWhited, Can I borrow your fifth amendment for a sec?

Dave: Are you jumping in to vote now, or On List for the rest too?

Dave: any time

> XMPP Extensions Editor shall issue a Call for Experience

I'll take that as an On List and move on :)

24) Deprecate XEP-0229: Stream Compression with LZW https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0229.html

-1

Maybe we should have just been voting to deprecate, doesn't look like we need to vote at all on a CFE; oh well.

+0

+1

daniel is -1 presumably as +1 on CFE

Ok, ta.

Not that it hurts; I guess we can only ask the editor to issue one for any that we've voted on (though if they wanted to do it for others, that's their business)

Now onto the 'real' stuff.

25) XEP-0045: Implement stable IDs on Reflection #600 https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/600

The feature should probably be named otherwise (e.g. http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#muc_stable_id for consistency with xep45, or a URI for consistency with new stuff), but ok to the intent. +1 after that tweak.

+1 on that. Looks OK.

+1

+1

Ge0rG: Are you ok with my above tweak?

Kev: check the XEP, it's full of muc_* features. I've taken consistency with those

I don't think they're *features*, I think they're config settings, from memory.

Kev: but I'm fine either way

Kev: you might be right

Can you two hash that out after the meeting (unless it's going to change a vote)?

SamWhited: apparently it is, for Kev

I suspect either I'll be wrong, in which case I'll +1 anyway, or I'm right and the change isn't contentious.

26) XEP-0153: Clarify encoding of update hash #593 https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/593

+1

+1

+1 (with the note that "hexidecimal digits" doesn't make much sense, but whatever, people will know what it means)

+1

+1

27) Date of next meeting SBTSBC?

+1 to that.

oh, huh, nevermind, Wikipedia suggests that "digit" Is used regardless of the radix or number of symbols.

Ahem, back to this… +1

Wfm

Good enough :)

28) AOB?

+1W WFM

None from me - I'll do the Editor's Issue for this and read through to write up the minutes.

Can I request that anything we voted on today where we ended up with no consensus to move forward or deprecate be added to the agenda for next week so we can hash through it in more detail and figure out why and what we want to do?

SamWhited: I suggest we do so onlist, before next meeting, personally.

But yes, we should see where the bodies have fallen and work out next steps.

SamWhited, I'll try to highlight those in the minutes, too, so we can thrash on-list as well.

That would work too, thanks!

Dave: I'm happy to write minutes if you like, as you weren't here.

I think we're done.

Great work!

Thanks Peter. I think that might have been the most on the agenda in a Council meeting ever. I'm amazed Dave had the stamina to go through them all.

Oh, wait.

#humblebrag

So the train has emptied enough for me to open up my laptop *just now*.

Nowt about bragging, it's about shaming Dave, which is much more fun.

#shameondave

Dave: Shout whether you'd like to minutes or like me to.

Kev, No, I'll do the minute in penance.

MinuteS. Definitely more than one of them.

Thanks.

Request for people here:

If you start a thread about one of the things that we didn't get consensus on, please start a separate thread for each one instead of replying to all of them on the minutes email.

It will be much easier to follow.

Additional request for people: Can folks have a look at my suggested xep50 text and see if it looks sane and let me know, please? If so I'll turn it into a 'proper' PR, else we can adapt.

What Sam said.

Also we should list all XEP-### tags in the subject of minutes mail covering them, for subject-searchability.

Dave, thank you very much for the editor issue

https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/601

Dave, thanks! :)

I’m gonna edit it to make it a tad more useful

I messed up, hang on.

okay

Ta-da.

awesome

CFE is not a state, is it?

(in contrast to proposed)

Right, it's just a Call For Experience to the list.

right

gonna make a template thing for that nevertheless

Which is interesting, because the Editor can do it at any time as long as certain conditions are met.

Dave (et al.), shall we make the CFE period longer than 14d this time because they are so many at once?

if so, how long?

Not on council, but that's probably wise. Or sending them in smaller weekly batches.

I’m fine with both

ha, I’m just gonna do that batched thing. it’s an editor task anyways.

I'd just do 14 days; we can always extend it later if needed.

Seems likely that they'd drown in each others noise if done all at once

Either way; batching seems reasonable and it's up to the editor.

SamWhited, https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/601#issuecomment-371250631 rationale